Isaac Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Regardless of whether these plebs are trolls, I do find your posts informative, Chinahand, so keep it up. It's also good to know there are still sane people in the world and not everyone is a complete dimwit who believes every next youtube conspiracy video they watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Perhaps someone could do a thread with a basic 101 course on applied critical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 TJ you do talk inconsistent bullshit sometimes you know. Why are you bothering, China? Are you bored? Also maybe I'm just an insufferable know-it-all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Listened to part of this Paul and at 11:00 on it, it said 'The distance from the light from lighthouses can be seen at sea 25,000 miles in circumference. Another great example is the Notre dame Antwerp spire standing 403ft high from the foot of the tower with Strasbourg measuring 468ft above sea level and so with the aid of a telescope, ships can be seen on the horizon and captains declare that they can see the spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the earth were a globe however at that distance, the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon. China has previously quoted (353) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990437 (355) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990446 and refraction (360) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990587 China - The quote I've used is from what was stated on the Youtube video put forward by Paul. On one hand, a mile is a considerable distance to be observed around a curvature of the earth. I have therefore included your three posts explaining this, but I have to say, a mile does seem quite a horizontal distance, even for a mirage/refraction. I know that you'll be able to explain this in better detail than I've included on here, but I do feel it needs to be cleared up from a fairness point of view. Please do not take it personal from me as my mathematics is not great and I do like your explanations, but would you mind once again? Thanks edited - ps; Can anyone tell me how to select part of a youtube video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I'm surprised people with this mindset survive into adulthood. If you don't believe the scientific discoveries of others, why would you trust someone who tells you to look before you cross the road? Or to not eat glass? Gerry, have you ever eaten a glass milk bottle? Would you go swimming in a crocodile infested river? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 26, 2015 Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 Manxy: look at post 351, you can try it out for yourself... the refraction of atmosphere is minimal to account for such apparent "phenomena". I have a good brain teaser coming up for MR clever clogs very soon....Enjoy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I'm surprised people with this mindset survive into adulthood. If you don't believe the scientific discoveries of others, why would you trust someone who tells you to look before you cross the road? Or to not eat glass? I don't particularly like comments by persons who make fun of people because of what others write and who don't provide one shred of evidence to negate the original viewpoint. If people believe that what they see is true, then they need to back it up with what evidence they have to prove their side of the story. if others who join in and randomly say that they don't believe that person, yet show no evidence of disproving that viewpoint, then the comment is worthless as it does not add or negate the evidence shown. In this case, CH has shown the current scientific or mathematical fact which has stood the test of time and Paul & Gerry are questioning these. They have to prove that what CH says is wrong by providing evidence. At the moment, CH facts appears to be holding up to scrutiny and would probably need a revelation to prove otherwise, but new discoveries are made every day and what was previously known as fact, could alter due to new evidence. For instance - what was believed to be true in the past doesn't necessarily stack up today. Examples An analogue computer was found to be made in 1900AD A spark plug from the 1920's was found to have been 500,000 years old And perhaps most interestingly, Mahabharata texts in 1,500BC showed battle planes that use sound beams and beams of light. I won't try to explain these as scientists have proven they are what they are, but a flat earth viewpoint still sounds optimistic to me at the moment although I'm open to new information to prove otherwise, providing that they counteract factual arguments previously stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Manxy - I think it is highly implausible that the top of the tower can be seen from 150 miles away - Mr Dubay is a proven liar concerning surveying, either he is making it up, or relying on old sea tales which have no basis in reality. Why doesn't he provide some evidence to back up his claim? The Tower is less than 70km from the sea - it is perfectly possible to see ships close to the coast. The top of 50 foot high ship would be visible about 78 km away under normal atmospheric conditions and vice versa - someone 50 foot up on a car ferry etc should be able to see the top of the tower from that distance - but not 150 miles. hull down by mmahaffie, on Flickr It is pretty easy to calculate the distance - for normal atmospheric conditions take the height of your eyes above the horizon in metres (m1), take the height of the object you are looking for above the horizon in metres (m2) and calculate 3.86 x (square root(m1) + square root(m2)). The result will be the distance the object is visible in kilometers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I know it's not fucking flat, anyone who thinks it is flat either has too much time on their hands or needs help. That's all I say on the matter, I'm not getting dragged into yet more passive aggressive nonsense from you. cause your so aggressively passive rnt ye mojo x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I'm surprised people with this mindset survive into adulthood. If you don't believe the scientific discoveries of others, why would you trust someone who tells you to look before you cross the road? Or to not eat glass? I don't particularly like comments by persons who make fun of people because of what others write and who don't provide one shred of evidence to negate the original viewpoint. . Posting what you like is of little interest to me. In fact, if you liked what I posted I'd feel as though I'd let myself down. I'd have to reevaluate my life, perhaps turn to alcohol or heroin in an attempt to rewire my thought processes. I'd be prepared to sacrifice my job, home, even my family in order to get my life headed in a positive direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Why are you bothering, China? Are you bored? I suppose that's a perfectly acceptable answer Quilp and partly true. And maybe GD, Manxie and PGW (and TE in an other context) are all just trolls seeing how long they can bait me for a gullible fool in believing that they think this is a worthwhile subject to debate, but I don't think that is true for all of them. I suspect their mindset is something that fascinates me and so I suppose I'm using this thread to explore it. Some people seem to be so mistrustful that they will be suspicious of even the most basic of things. But also they seem to trust there is some truth coming from people who say the most basic, easily disprovable lies. The tension between that mistrust and trust is a fascinating symptom of something about our society and the internet is empowering it in a way which I think is deeply corrosive. It stops people being able to assess issues because they think they have to take every piece of bullshit into consideration and that is the only word I can use for the quality of information GD and PGW (and TE is an other context) are presenting. don't miscontrue the truth i post china, there's really no need. thanks x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Listened to part of this Paul and at 11:00 on it, it said 'The distance from the light from lighthouses can be seen at sea 25,000 miles in circumference. Another great example is the Notre dame Antwerp spire standing 403ft high from the foot of the tower with Strasbourg measuring 468ft above sea level and so with the aid of a telescope, ships can be seen on the horizon and captains declare that they can see the spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the earth were a globe however at that distance, the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon. China has previously quoted (353) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990437 (355) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990446 and refraction (360) http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/?p=990587 China - The quote I've used is from what was stated on the Youtube video put forward by Paul. On one hand, a mile is a considerable distance to be observed around a curvature of the earth. I have therefore included your three posts explaining this, but I have to say, a mile does seem quite a horizontal distance, even for a mirage/refraction. I know that you'll be able to explain this in better detail than I've included on here, but I do feel it needs to be cleared up from a fairness point of view. Please do not take it personal from me as my mathematics is not great and I do like your explanations, but would you mind once again? Thanks edited - ps; Can anyone tell me how to select part of a youtube video? i'm enjoying my research into the subject manxy and i don't appreciate the derogatory remarks i recieve for telling the truth. i will never understand why anyone feels the need to bully an honest person into believing something. instead of just letting them think for themselves? makes me sick. especially in the world of deception. thanks for being decent x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I'm surprised people with this mindset survive into adulthood. If you don't believe the scientific discoveries of others, why would you trust someone who tells you to look before you cross the road? Or to not eat glass? I don't particularly like comments by persons who make fun of people because of what others write and who don't provide one shred of evidence to negate the original viewpoint. If people believe that what they see is true, then they need to back it up with what evidence they have to prove their side of the story. if others who join in and randomly say that they don't believe that person, yet show no evidence of disproving that viewpoint, then the comment is worthless as it does not add or negate the evidence shown. In this case, CH has shown the current scientific or mathematical fact which has stood the test of time and Paul & Gerry are questioning these. They have to prove that what CH says is wrong by providing evidence. At the moment, CH facts appears to be holding up to scrutiny and would probably need a revelation to prove otherwise, but new discoveries are made every day and what was previously known as fact, could alter due to new evidence. For instance - what was believed to be true in the past doesn't necessarily stack up today. Examples An analogue computer was found to be made in 1900AD A spark plug from the 1920's was found to have been 500,000 years old And perhaps most interestingly, Mahabharata texts in 1,500BC showed battle planes that use sound beams and beams of light. I won't try to explain these as scientists have proven they are what they are, but a flat earth viewpoint still sounds optimistic to me at the moment although I'm open to new information to prove otherwise, providing that they counteract factual arguments previously stated. just like to reiterate that i neither believe nor disbelieve either side here. again, i do not know the shape of the earth and am open to all info supporting either theory. that's what makes it interesting. not here to prove or disprove anything. i just like the topic and am keen to learn more so thanks to all the nice people and thanks to the usual walters as well x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 Manxy - I think it is highly implausible that the top of the tower can be seen from 150 miles away - Mr Dubay is a proven liar concerning surveying, either he is making it up, or relying on old sea tales which have no basis in reality. Why doesn't he provide some evidence to back up his claim? The Tower is less than 70km from the sea - it is perfectly possible to see ships close to the coast. The top of 50 foot high ship would be visible about 78 km away under normal atmospheric conditions and vice versa - someone 50 foot up on a car ferry etc should be able to see the top of the tower from that distance - but not 150 miles. hull down by mmahaffie, on Flickr It is pretty easy to calculate the distance - for normal atmospheric conditions take the height of your eyes above the horizon in metres (m1), take the height of the object you are looking for above the horizon in metres (m2) and calculate 3.86 x (square root(m1) + square root(m2)). The result will be the distance the object is visible in kilometers. I don't know if I read this wrong but I cannot get the above result (78km) even using the magic fiddle formula . how is " eyes above the horizon" to be interpreted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Check your units. The tower is 403ft high and 468ft above sea level therefore the top of the tower is 871 ft above sea level. The other point is 50ft above sea level. Convert these to metres, use the formula, the result will be in km. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.